Broward County, Florida – In a significant legal resolution, a former prosecutor, Andrew Newman, who served 26 years at the Broward State Attorney’s Office, has settled his discrimination lawsuit for $90,000, including attorney’s fees. The settlement was finalized in court last October, but the details have only recently been made public following a request for records.
Newman’s lawsuit stemmed from allegations that his termination was racially motivated. The dismissal occurred shortly after Harold Pryor took office as the Broward State Attorney in 2020. Pryor, who campaigned on a pledge to increase ethnic diversity within the office, also dismissed four other long-serving white colleagues of Newman: Tony Loe, Tim Donnelly, Alex Urruela, and Ted Daus. However, Newman was the only one among them who decided to take legal action. Urruela later expressed support for Newman’s decision to sue, although Urruela did not join the lawsuit.
The terms of the settlement reveal that Newman will receive $43,750 in compensatory damages and $18,750 in back pay, with the responsibility for the associated taxes falling on him. His legal representation will be awarded an additional $27,500. As part of the agreement, Newman has agreed to waive any further claims against the State Attorney’s Office.
Interestingly, the settlement explicitly states that there was no admission of wrongdoing by the State Attorney’s Office, which maintained that Newman’s allegations were not valid. Both parties, however, concurred that settling was preferable to the uncertainties and exposures of a trial.
Read also: Broward County joins cities nationwide in tackling climate change and fostering green recovery
A trial would have likely been extensive and complex, involving testimonies from numerous current and former employees. They would have been required to discuss under oath the balance Pryor sought between his diversity initiative and the rights of existing white employees. Additionally, it would have compelled Newman to justify his performance and conduct during his tenure.
This case emphasizes the complexity that might result from major staff demographic changes and a balanced approach between efforts at occupational diversity and defending of employee rights. Since it tackles the difficulties of balancing diversity policies with anti-discrimination legislation, the outcome of this lawsuit might act as a precedent or point of reference for like circumstances in the future.
